Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1022 (RAJ)

Rajak Mohd. v. U. O. I.

2015-05-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the communication Annex.-8 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, North-Western Railways, Sadulpur, District Churu, whereby the petitioner has been advised to vacate the alleged railway premises within 15 days and it has been threatened that if the unauthorised occupation is not vacated within the period of 07 days, legal action will be taken to vacate the same from the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the Act'). 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question under a regularly issued lease by the Local Authority and the Railways for no apparent reason, is seeking to disturb the possession and / or dispute the ownership of the petitioner, which is contrary to the available record and fact situation, which obtains at the site and therefore, the respondents are not justified in issuing the notice. 3. A further plea has been raised by the petitioner that if at all the respondents can take action, it can only be taken under the provisions of the Act and admittedly, notice Annexure-8 has not been issued by the Estate Officer and therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner based on the contents of the writ petition and have perused the material available on record. 5. A bare look at the notice Annex.-8 reveals that the Assistant Divisional Engineer has simply issued a notice in the nature of warning to vacate the premises and has indicated as under at the end of the notice:- "You are, therefore requested to vacate the unauthorized occupation of Railway land within 7 days otherwise legal action will be taken to vacate the same from you under PPE Act 1971." 6. The indication in the notice is very clear that the railways would initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act for removal of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that vide notice Annex.-8, the petitioner without recourse the provisions of the Act would be removed by the respondents appears to be misplaced and no case for interference is made out. 8. 7. In that view of the matter, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that vide notice Annex.-8, the petitioner without recourse the provisions of the Act would be removed by the respondents appears to be misplaced and no case for interference is made out. 8. So far as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding any high handed behaviour by the railway authorities is concerned, it is expected from the respondents railways to undertake proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in case any cause arises to them against the petitioner.With the above observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******